Major newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek have descended into increasing irrelevance over the years, each one looking more like People magazine than a serious journal of the times. Shorter articles, more fluff. But I could not resist picking up the latest Newsweek. With a picture of white baby’s face on the cover, it asks in black lettering, “Is Your Baby Racist?” Even in today’s political climate, I was taken aback. Is it supposed to be humorous, like this? Well, no. Like this articlefrom the British press about kids who don’t like ethnic food, it’s serious. Your baby might actually be… racist. Just like your dog. Who knew that the $PLC and the SPCA would one day need to merge? The article itself is actually an excerpt from a book titled NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children, by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. According to their bios, he’s a novelist in San Francisco with two children, while she runs a “church-based tutoring program” in Los Angeles’ inner city… and is apparently childless. Though the excerpt references the work of psychologists and research professors, neither Bronson nor Merryman appear to have any scientific credentials. But never mind. Whatever else they’re preaching in NurtureShock, the MSM loves it, which of course only makes me deeply skeptical. In a nutshell, the research recounted by Bronson and Merryman shows that children as young as 6 months are able to distinguish among the races, that they’re troubled or puzzled by other races, and that as toddlers, they like to make generalizations and prefer the company of their own racial group. In other words, everything that we as racially conscious whites could have predicted. As Kevin MacDonald has written, this stuff goes all the way down to the amygdala. And it tracks the research of figures like Harvard’s Robert Putnam, who’s found that racial diversity, rather than making us happier, makes us all anxious and distrustful —even of persons in our racial group. Talk about inconvenient truths. Discovery that decades of multiracial propaganda, from Sesame Street to Dora the Explorer, have been useless exercises must be confounding. Amazingly, writers like Bronson and Merryman take this information and use it as a reason double-up racial mindwashing. Where, pray tell, is the “naturalism” so beloved by liberals? The “let nature take its course” attitude that they apply to sexuality, for instance? Can you imagine a sharp concern about “is your baby gay?” and efforts to uproot that? I can only hope that someone out there — unaware of the racial consciousness movement and its literature, but otherwise discerning — will take note of the concern over racist babies and dogs and think, “Wait, isn’t this all just a little bit crazy?” A pillar of the multiracialist movement is that “racism” is a conscious and evil choice, and that all that’s needed to cure it is more “education.” Racist babies complicate that narrative. Nobody really believes that babies are evil. How nicely the absurdity of multiracialism is revealed, then. Take this little gem from the Newsweek excerpt: “Prone to categorization, children’s brains can’t help but attempt to generalize rules from the examples they see.” Of course, scientists also have brains that are “prone to categorization,” and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t make good scientists. This is something children are to be faulted for? How to fix these racist babies? You must be explicit with your child, Bronson and Merryman say, approvingly quoting one mother who hammered her child with “Remember, everybody’s equal” over and over. “Remember, everyone’s equal.” Can’t anyone call this for what it is, brainwashing? The error that needs force and constant propaganda rather than the truth that stands alone? Winston Smith and the number of fingers being held up? It is fun to watch the scientific data collide so spectacularly with multiracial dogma. As I see it, this collision splits off in only two directions: one, a recognition of racial reality that leads to an informed discussion about the problems of multiracialism (and benefits Whites), or two, efforts to censor the information or provide increasingly desperate spins, all of which will be noted by smarter folks who might otherwise remain racially unconscious. In other words, talk of racist babies is “good for Whites.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.